When is the court date for Hillary?

[texas_ex2000]

With Petraus, knowledge of the law and intent were clear. He was prosecuted, but as a national hero not to the fullest extent of the law. Hillary, in this instance, can play stupid and intent is hard to prove. Kinda hard to make that jibe "with most qualified nominee ever" but her handlers will try to make the case: "Pretty smart, learned some lessons about benefits of transparency through this humbling experience and we contend not so nutty and dangerous as the guy she's running against."

You want some "honesty?" How about a discount coupon for A Full Life: Relections at 90" by Jimmy Carter? If you don't need authenticity with your honesty, we can go over some Parson Weems myths, starting with George Washington and the cherry tree.

I'm still trying to understand how one can send and receive 110 classified messages (CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME OF TRANSMISSION) over an unsecured system without an intention of ignoring classified material handling protocol. In jest - the only excuse is that you were sick from school the day they taught classified material handling, which as the Most Qualified Candidate Ever, I'm guessing she'll pass on that one.

You find out your teenage kid is doing something inappropriate on his email he explicitly knows he's not supposed to be doing. Could be sending social security/bank account/or credit card numbers with vendors. Could be sending or receiving naked of photos with his girlfriend. He did it 110 times. Do you believe him when he says he didn't intend to do it?

 

[iatrogenic]

On the FBI website, you can provide tips to the FBI on potential criminal activity . I sent them one concerning "obstruction of justice" by James Comey.

They'll probably drop by the house later and I can provide them with the facts, which were fortunately provided by James Comey.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A good article on the absurdity of the FBI's inaction. It's on a conservative website that obviously doesn't like Clinton, but it's hard to argue with its logic

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Musburger1]

I don't believe there is any possibility Comey actually believed Clinton didn't commit felonies and that charges should not be brought. He was instructed what to say and reluctantly followed orders. I'd give anything to know how it went down and how much coercion was used.

 

[Clean]

At least Trump should be able to get some devastating political ads out of this. He could show one of the countless clips of Clinton lying about never sending classified info or compromising national security and contrast it with the FBI's findings.

There is now absolutely no doubt that she knowing lied and that she recklessly risked handing over classified material to the enemy. Before yesterday it was just suspected, but not proven.

There's also the whole shady business of Bill meeting with Lynch and then Obama flying her down to North Carolina on AF1 just in time for Comey's little show. It sure seemed staged (i.e. "rigged" as Trump would say) to me.

The only question is was the American voting public paying attention?

 

[Joe Fan]

NRO seems to be coming around to my position that a 2nd Revolution is on the horizon

 

[Phil Elliott]

Yep, it's just the Democrats...until the Republicans are in power.

That's all you got, SH? They did it too? You're not really serious enough to even argue with.

 

[Horn6721]

Phil E
That has been to go to rebuttal for awhile.

 

[Mr. Deez]

At least Trump should be able to get some devastating political ads out of this. He could show one of the countless clips of Clinton lying about never sending classified info or compromising national security and contrast it with the FBI's findings.

There is now absolutely no doubt that she knowing lied and that she recklessly risked handing over classified material to the enemy. Before yesterday it was just suspected, but not proven.

There's also the whole shady business of Bill meeting with Lynch and then Obama flying her down to North Carolina on AF1 just in time for Comey's little show. It sure seemed staged (i.e. "rigged" as Trump would say) to me.

The only question is was the American voting public paying attention?

It definitely helps Trump (if he can act like an adult about it). This entire debacle basically ruins HRC's claim that she is a steady hand with sound judgment. Trump can run ads (if he can raise the money to do so) showing the FBI director explaining how reckless and dangerous she is. In addition, it reinforces her biggest weakness, which is that she's an untrustworthy hack.

However, the real challenge for Trump is to prove that he's a real alternative rather than a Kardashian.

 

[Musburger1]

Another strategy available for Trump would be to expand his attacks on Hillary to an attack on the corruption in government. You highlight everything escaping accountability from the failure to indict financial banking villains responsible for the housing bust, those involved in fast and furious, the clandestine arming of jihadists in both Libya and Syria (CIA), and of course the recent "all clear" given to Hillary. You suggest a house cleaning is in order and only someone capable of uttering the words "You're Fired" can begin to get the job done.

 

[Seattle Husker]

With Petraus, knowledge of the law and intent were clear.

Petraus physically handed over his private notebooks from his career over to his biographer. These notebooks were from years of sitting in Confidential meetings. That's ultimately the act that he was convicted for.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's all you got, SH? They did it too? You're not really serious enough to even argue with.

No, I'm stating this is a systemic problem. Not a Clinton problem. How many Wall Street bankers have been charged? Where is Dick Cheney right now? Look no further than the Chilcot report and you can see ample evidence that the Bush Admin trumped up information to justify a war. The Republican and Democrats primary difference is minimal when it comes to corruption.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

You suggest a house cleaning is in order and only someone capable of uttering the words "You're Fired" can begin to get the job done.

That's probably a winnable campaign, if he chooses to wage it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Here is a good article from NPR that attempts to compare Hillary's statements with Comey's facts that he laid out in his prepared statement. I'll let the masses dissect it.

1. Did Clinton send and receive classified material on her personal email?

What She Said:

On March 10, 2015, when Clinton held a press conference at the United Nations to address the issue of her private email server at length, she did not equivocate.

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email," she said. "There is no classified material."

By Feb. 1, 2016, Clinton had softened that statement. Here's what she told NPR's Morning Edition:

"The emails that I was received were not marked classified. Now, there are disagreements among agencies on what should have been perhaps classified retroactively, but at the time that doesn't change the fact that they were not marked classified."

What He Said:

i
FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI headquarters in Washington. Cliff Owen/AP hide caption

toggle caption Cliff Owen/AP
FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI headquarters in Washington.

Cliff Owen/AP
In his statement today, Comey said that the FBI not only looked at the 30,000 emails that Clinton turned over to the Department of State, but investigators also looked through servers for emails that had been deleted.

In total, Comey said, 113 emails — including three newly discovered ones — read by the FBI contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.

Some of them were highly classified. Seven email chains, for example, concerned issues that "were classified at the top secret special access program," which denotes some of the most sensitive information a government official might come across.

"Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters," Comey said.

Comey added that a "very small number of the emails" were marked — or labeled — "classified."

"But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it," Comey said.

2. Did Clinton turn over all work-related email to the Department of State?

What She Said:

Again, during her press conference at the U.N., Clinton was clear on this point:

"I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department."

What He Said:

When the FBI looked at emails that had been deleted from Clinton's server, they turned up "several thousand work-related emails" that were not turned over to the State Department.

Comey added:

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from her system when devices were changed.

"Because she was not using a government account or even a commercial account like Gmail, there was no archiving at all of her emails. So it's not surprising that we discovered emails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014 when she produced those 30,000-some emails to State."

3. Was Clinton's personal email server hacked?

What She Said:

At the U.N. press conference, Clinton said that her email system was set up for President Bill Clinton's office at their home in New York.

"It had numerous safeguards," she said. "It was on property guarded by the Secret Service and there were no security breaches."

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell earlier this year, Clinton was asked if she had any indication that her private server was hacked by foreign actors.

"No, not at all," she said.

What He Said:

Comey said that Clinton's server did not enjoy "full-time security" like the servers at U.S. agencies or even like the servers used by commercial services like Gmail.

Comey said the agency was not able to tell for sure whether Clinton's server was hacked by a nation-state or hostile actors. Here's how he explained it:

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

4. Did Clinton access her email from several devices?

What She Said:

Clinton said that the big reason she wanted to use a personal email account while secretary of state was convenience.

"When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," Clinton said.

In July of 2015, after reports surfaced that Clinton used multiple devices, her campaign put out a statement.

"When the iPad came out in 2010, she was as curious as others and found it great for shopping, browsing, and reading articles when she traveled," the campaign said. "She also had access to her email account on her iPad and sometimes used it for that too."

What He Said:

Comey said throughout Clinton's four years as secretary of state, she used several servers and administrators, and she also "used numerous mobile devices" to send and read email.

"As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored and decommissioned in various ways," Comey said.

Because Comey did not take questions, it is unclear whether Clinton was using those "numerous mobile devices" at the same time or if she swapped them out over time.

 

[I35]

No, I'm stating this is a systemic problem. Not a Clinton problem.

Will you at least admit that the systematic problem is a fraction of a Hillary problem?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Will you at least admit that the systematic problem is a fraction of a Hillary problem?

I'm not absolving HRC or POTUS Bill Clinton by any means. What I take issue with is the inference that it's a partisan problem because I think that partisanship is what allows the problem to continue. One side ignores it while they are in power then tries to stake a moral high ground against the opponent when they do not wield the power. That hypocrisy is what allows the parties to continue unabated.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'm not absolving HRC or POTUS Bill Clinton by any means. What I take issue with is the inference that it's a partisan problem because I think that partisanship is what allows the problem to continue. One side ignores it while they are in power then tries to stake a moral high ground against the opponent when they do not wield the power. That hypocrisy is what allows the parties to continue unabated.

Seattle, no one here is saying the GOP are saints. Far from it.

But marginalizing what Clinton has done, which is unique and some of the worst we've seen from a government official, by saying, "Wait!!! Everyone else does it!!!!" rings false.

Instead of yelling glass houses, I think swiftly punishing corruption (GOP or Democrats) when you find it (or hits you on the head like a cinder block dropped from the sky) is generally a better way of dealing with it.

 

[Phil Elliott]

One side ignores it while they are in power then tries to stake a moral high ground against the opponent when they do not wield the power.

Only one side has the MSM covering for it, tho.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Seattle, no one here is saying the GOP are saints. Far from it.

But marginalizing what Clinton has done, which is unique and some of the worst we've seen from a government official, by saying, "Wait!!! Everyone else does it!!!!" rings false.

Instead of yelling glass houses, I think swiftly punishing corruption when you find it (or hits you on the head like cinder block brick dropped from the sky) is generally a better way of dealing with it.

I'm not marginalizing it at all. On this and other threads I've stated that the HRC seems to have different rules because were I in that situation as a 74C (Telecommunications Operator) in the US Army, I would have been court marshalled. My point is that raising hell now rings hollow because those cries were absent under Republican administrations. I'm still wondering why Dick Cheney got off so easy as the mastermind of the Iraq War in hindsight (and I said at the time) was based on illogical evidence and now proven to be simply attempts to justify a predetermined war. Are you ready to call for an investigation there? Let's string up HRC for being an idiot and Cheney for treason.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Seattle, if you want to say Cheney is a war criminal because of this or that...that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions.

A "predetermined war" is an opinion. To others, that opinion may be a timely post 9-11 policy of removing a threat that presents a clear and present danger to the US. You may disagree with such policies, but..hey that's cool. It's your opinion.

What I hear from the Bush and Cheney are war criminals crowd are lots of opinions. Opinions on the credibility of intelligence, opinions on what is/was/should be defined as torture and the Geneva Convention. Some of them are opinions I can agree with and some (most actually) are idiotic - idiotic that the entire Intelligence Community of the US/UK were under Cheney's thumb - idiotic that it's not possible for the IC, comprised of hundreds of thousands of people of diverse backgrounds, may not all agree on a threat assessment (therefore Cheney must have been manipulating the assessments!).

What I don't hear from them are undisputed facts of Bush and Cheney of breaking US Law. The undisputed fact case you wanted is essentially what Clinton has given us.

 

[UTChE96]

This actually could not have worked out any better for Trump. Comey did Trump a huge favor by not recommending an indictment. HRC is the weakest candidate that the Dems could have nominated. And now the head of the FBI has systematically disputed all of her talking points regarding the email scandal. Trump can make the argument that she is reckless and not competent enough to handle confidential information. This further weakens an already very weak candidate. Not that it will matter since Trump is a very weak candidate in his own regard.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Seattle, if you want to say Cheney is a war criminal because of this or that...that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions.

A "predetermined war" is an opinion. To others, that opinion may be a timely post 9-11 policy of removing a threat that presents a clear and present danger to the US. You may disagree with such policies, but..hey that's cool. It's your opinion.

What I hear from the Bush and Cheney are war criminals crowd are lots of opinions. Opinions on the credibility of intelligence, opinions on what is/was/should be defined as torture and the Geneva Convention. Some of them are opinions I can agree with and some (most actually) are idiotic - idiotic that the entire Intelligence Community of the US/UK were under Cheney's thumb - idiotic that it's not possible for the IC, comprised of hundreds of thousands of people of diverse backgrounds, may not all agree on a threat assessment (therefore Cheney must have been manipulating the assessments!).

What I don't hear from them are undisputed facts of Bush and Cheney of breaking US Law. The undisputed fact case you wanted is essentially what Clinton has given us.

Not to take this down a rabbit hole but what Cheney and the Neo-Cons did was no different than the Obama Administration did in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi. They cherry-picked flimsy evidence to create a storyline that was favorable to the outcome they desired. Specifically, the Al Awlaki tie to Sadam. The only difference between that and the Benghazi "It was a video" is tens of thousands of deaths.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Not to take this down a rabbit hole but what Cheney and the Neo-Cons did was no different than the Obama Administration did in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi. They cherry-picked flimsy evidence to create a storyline that was favorable to the outcome they desired. Specifically, the Al Awlaki tie to Sadam. The only difference between that and the Benghazi "It was a video" is tens of thousands of deaths.

"Cherry-pick" "flimsy" "Specifically (as if AA was the only data point/reason)" = Opinion

113 classified emails at the time of transmission with 8 at TS/SCI/SAP level on an unsecured server(s) and device(s) in contravention of classified material handling laws = Undisputed Facts

The only difference between that and the Benghazi "It was a video" is tens of thousands of deaths.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice all were confident (mistakenly) that we would find WMD. From Clinton's emails, we know undisputedly for a fact that they knew Benghazi was not the product of a youtube video.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This actually could not have worked out any better for Trump. Comey did Trump a huge favor by not recommending an indictment. HRC is the weakest candidate that the Dems could have nominated. And now the head of the FBI has systematically disputed all of her talking points regarding the email scandal. Trump can make the argument that she is reckless and not competent enough to handle confidential information. This further weakens an already very weak candidate. Not that it will matter since Trump is a very weak candidate in his own regard.

I agree with the only exception being that Hillary being indicted would have worked out better. Bringing in a "Biden" 2 weeks prior to the convention and 3-4 months before the election and hoping to win would be akin to being down 8 points in the 4th on your own 20 with 20 seconds to go in the game with the ball.

 

[Mr. Deez]

SH,

Respectfully, you're on thin ice with this one. It takes quite a few leaps and assumptions to establish that Cheney and/or Bush lied (meaning intentionally made false statements) to justify the Iraq War. It takes no leaps to establish that "it was the video" was a lie, because Clinton admitted in writing that it was a lie. As you rightly pointed out, the stakes were obviously much higher in the Iraq War, but that's really beside the point in determining who's a bad apple and who's not.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree with the only exception being that Hillary being indicted would have worked out better. Bringing in a "Biden" 2 weeks prior to the convention and 3-4 months before the election and hoping to win would be akin to being down 8 points in the 4th on your own 20 with 20 seconds to go in the game with the ball.

I'm not so sure about that. Biden is a known and generally well-liked product. I don't think he'd need a lengthy campaign to defeat Trump.

 

[UTChE96]

I'm not so sure about that. Biden is a known and generally well-liked product. I don't think he'd need a lengthy campaign to defeat Trump.

I agree with that. Biden would easily be the most likeable candidate in the race, and the most likeable candidate almost always wins the general election. The one variable is the Bernie supporters that feel their guy didn't get a fair shake. Would enough of them defect or stay home, not sure.

 

[Seattle Husker]

"Cherry-pick" "flimsy" "Specifically (as if AA was the only data point/reason)" = Opinion

113 classified emails at the time of transmission with 8 at TS/SCI/SAP level on an unsecured server(s) and device(s) in contravention of classified material handling laws = Undisputed Facts

The difference is one has had $14M spent on investigations while the other $0.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The difference is one has had $14M spent on investigations while the other $0.

That's not true. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the prewar intelligence problems and issued a report. I don't know how much money was spent, but it wasn't $0. Also, as I've pointed out in the past, a big factor in determining the cost of an investigation is the cooperation and honesty of the person being investigated. Needless to say, HRC was a colossal BSer throughout the investigation.